Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Write4U]

What you said sounds true, but not remotely like what I said.

Of course not, we all have different perspectives on the same subject. Mine is from an atheist POV.

This sad old bullshit again? "You're really a theist because if you weren't then my own position would be on very thin ground!" Which fallacy it that, again?

If I missed the point of your "question", please enlighten me.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course not, we all have different perspectives on the same subject. Mine is from an atheist POV.

Wait! I'm speaking to an actual atheist? WOW!

If I missed the point of your "question", please enlighten me.

You missed, I won't repeat it.

 

[Dinosaur]

Scientists who discovered that atheists might not exist did not consult me or various friends of mine.

They are mistaken. Furthermore they are arrogant. How can they claim that I How can they claim to know what I believe?

I would not consider telling a person what he or she believes. They might tell me what they believe.
​

I do not believe in any supernatural entity commonly called god. I have a few friends who have the same POV.

 

[James R]

Actually, when you think about it, the headline (at least) of that article is just silly. "Atheists might not exist." The only way that proposition can be sustained is, as iceaura said, to make the "no true Scotsman" argument - that everybody who claims to be an atheist doesn't really know their own mind and/or actually harbors a secret "deep down" belief in God or gods, despite any denials they might make.

Of course, history in this forum tells us that this is exactly how Jan Ardena (who posted this thread) thinks about atheists. He asserts that atheists are all in "denial". Jan thinks that secretly, really, atheists do acknowledge that God is real. Moreover, Jan asserts that it is actually impossible for anybody to claim to be atheist unless God really, actually exists. That is, in Jan's mind, a world in which God does not exist is inconceivable; therefore atheism must equate to denial of reality, from which it follows that atheists must be deceiving themselves.

 

[Write4U]

Wait! I'm speaking to an actual atheist? WOW!
You missed, I won't repeat it.

Well, then I'll continue to let Carlin speak for me. We share the same viewpoint, but he explains it much better.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you declare that you don't believe in the gods of standard religions, yet you still believe in a vague "higher spiritual power", then you're probably not really an atheist, even if you think that you are.

"No true Scotsmen fallacy"?
Interesting.

But that just means you probably haven't thought things through completely, and - let's face it - lots of people don't devote a lot of thought to their religious views.

Which is why the thread title could have significance.
Atheists tend to accept, that for them, there is no evidence for God, yet theists believe in God. Could it be that the atheists haven't thought their position through?

If the last sentence is supposed to imply that theists are somehow "more aware" than atheists, then I would dispute that.

Why?

In fact, as a general comment, my impression is that the author has a pro-theism bias; parts of the article read almost like a defence of theistic thinking.

Not only is that irrelevant, it is pure speculation which if taken seriously, can impede critically thinking about the actual proposition.
If it is true, that there really are no actual atheists, despite what we may think, wouldn't you want to know?
It would be difficult to come to knowledge, if you poo-poo the findings, without taking it seriously.

Recently I have been reading Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain, and I mostly agree with his general thesis that we all tend to believe first, and only go looking for reasons for our beliefs later.

Micheal Shermer is a professional atheist. I wouldn't trust that he is being mutually objective.

Smart people can believe a lot of dumb things because they do not arrive at those beliefs through a process of reasoning in the first place. Rather, they just start to believe because it fits in with personal or more general human biases of thought. But once they have a belief, smart people are great at finding arguments to defend those beliefs. And most people, most of the time, are resistant to changing their minds, especially about long-standing and deep-seated beliefs they have adopted.

No doubt he attributes that to theists, or religious people, and not to atheists. He believes that the smart, rational people, are atheists. His findings, while they be factual (for the sake of argument), they are more than likely to be loaded with presuppositions.

The article in the opening post touches on one major reason why people believe in gods. We are indeed pattern seekers, and we're so good at it that we have a tendency to find patterns even where none exist. So, for example, we have a tendency to attribute random occurences and coincidences to the intentional actions of unseen agents. We're primed for belief in gods and spirits - and also for belief in UFOs, conspiracy theories, paranormal powers, astrology, and much else besides.

That's one way of looking at it. Of course all these speculations could be absolutely wrong. The reality is that we have to work things out for ourselves. We can incorporate that idea, and try to observe ourselves, and see if we fall into that model. We could eventually believe that this correct, when we consciously observe ourselves.

The problem is, what is going on when we're not not observing ourselves, ourselves being embroiled in the moment.

For example, a religious person can act virtuous, while in a religious state of mind, but act differently when not in a religious state of mind. Now such a person has to justify those non-religious actions, by incorporating them into his religious outlook, deeming the actions virtuous.
It seems to me that this is the problem.

Of course, pointing out that human beings are predisposed to believe in the supernatural is very different from establishing that the supernatural is in any way real. The fact that the vast majority of human beings believe in supernatural gods and forces in no way proves the existence of such gods or forces.

Theism isn't about making conscious decisions to believe in the "supernatural", it just looks like that when you say it out loud. I believe that theism is natural for humans. It only becomes a phenomenon when you introduce atheism, and/or agnosticism.
Theism is not concerned about God's existence. It only becomes an issue when one is asked to prove that God exists.
Then all of a sudden, God is brought into a mainstream scenario.

Can one prove that they love their child?

How would you measure that, in order to get to the fact.

For others, there is a nature that simply kicks in when you have a child, which means you automatically, unconditionally, love your child.

But how can you prove that in a mainstream way? What exactly is the mainstream looking for?

If you don't possess that nature, but you want to find out if it actually exists, or you want to find out what it is. How are you realistically going to do that? What if you arrive at the idea that it is false, or just an evolutionary mechanism? What about the people who have it, but due to their experience, disagree?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course, history in this forum no I'm tells us that this is exactly how Jan Ardena (who posted this thread) thinks about atheists. He asserts that atheists are all in "denial". Jan thinks that secretly, really, atheists do acknowledge that God is real. Moreover, Jan asserts that it is actually impossible for anybody to claim to be atheist unless God really, actually exists. That is, in Jan's mind, a world in which God does not exist isinconceivable; therefore atheism must equate to denial of reality [of God] , from whichit follows that atheists must bedeceiving themselves.

The parts that are blocked relate to me in some sense. I added the red bold to a clearer indication of what it is you think, I think.

Wouldn't it be great if you found out it was true? You wouldn't have to come up with excuses to validate and justify your position anymore.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Theists seem to believe that there is only one possible solution to the emergence of the universe.
They conveniently forget there are many scientifically based interpretations of the Wholeness coming into existence.

This is a classic example of "a rose is a rose by any other name", but which does not imply any special attributes other than being a rose, unlike the Theist concept that the Wholeness needs an additional (and superfluous) sentient and motivated being, named God.

 

[Write4U]

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.
G.K. Chesterton.

If there were no people who believed in the existence of a God, there would be no Theists and nothing in the universe would change, except for Religious wars on Earth.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Theists seem to believe that there is only one possible solution to the emergence of the universe.
They conveniently forget there are many scientifically based interpretations of the Wholeness coming into existence.

Theists believe in God. If they propose a solution for the presence of the universe, it has nothing to do with theism. Even if they posit that God brought it into being.

There are theists that accept macro-evolution (I mean, what's that about
). That should be proof enough, that theism isn't a worldview.

This is a classic example of "a rose is a rose by any other name", but which does not imply any special attributes other than being a rose, unlike the concept that the Wholeness needs an additional (and superfluous) sentient and motivated being, named God.

He says as a sentient being.
Do you appreciate a rose? Or any beautiful arrangement of nature?
If yes. Why? How?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If there were no people who believed in the existence of a God, there would be no Theists.

But we know that's not possible. Right?



Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Our beliefs are manifestations of our philosophies. The quality of those beliefs are dependent on the quality of their associated philosophies. We’re not born with well developed intellects or philosophies, those come with age and experience. It all comes down to the garbage in, garbage out adage. All philosophies have potential flaws regarding cosmological truth, the ones that don’t acknowledge this fact are the ones furthest off the mark.

Maybe we put too much emphasis on cosmology. Does it matter if we know how the universe got here? If we all agreed that the universe came to be, via via X. How would that change anything?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

But we know that's not possible. Right?

Jan.

Why not? How many gods have passed into oblivion along with greater scientific knowledge.

You are part of a long line of people who have created Tulpas.

Tulpa is a concept in mysticism and the paranormal of a being or object which is created through spiritual or mental powers.[1] It was adapted by 20th century theosophists from Tibetan sprul-pa (Tibetan: སྤྲུལ་པ་, Wylie: sprulpa) which means "emanation" or "manifestation".
Modern practitioners use the term to refer to a type of willed imaginary friend which practitioners consider to be sentient and relatively autonomous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

 

[Write4U]

Maybe we put too much emphasis on cosmology. Does it matter if we know how the universe got here? If we all agreed that the universe came to be, via via X. How would that change anything?
Jan.

Apparently it matters to you. And we are talking about cosmology, no?

Do you pray to God? Why? Atheists do not have to pray to an imaginary friend.
Atheists can and do meditate, but that's interospection of self, not of an unknowable cosmic sentience.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I used to say I wasn't religious enough to call myself an atheist. Religion never had anything to do with my life. Other than the Internet it still doesn't. Even here in the Buckle of the Bible Belt I have miniscule interactions with religion.

For someone who's not had anything to do with religion, throughout life, you sure are obsessed with it.

This thread isn't about religion, mate.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For someone who's not had anything to do with religion, throughout life, you sure are obsessed with it.

This thread isn't about religion, mate.

Jan.

The US is infested with religion. And this thread is about religion, even if you don't like that. There are no gods, just people think there are gods. That's religion, that's theism.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why not? How many gods have passed into oblivion along with greater scientific knowledge.

I don't know. Please enlighten me.

You are part of a long line of people who have created Tulpas.

Really?

You claim to be something that you're not. Atheist.
With that level of delusion, how can I trust what you, or any other delusional, assert?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The US is infested with religion. And this thread is about religion, even if you don't like that. There are no gods, just people think there are gods. That's religion, that's theism.

No it's not.
You simply don't get it.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Apparently it matters to you. And we are talking about cosmology, no?

When "we" is put into the sentence, it usually indicates the inclusion of the author.
Like I said, theism isn't a worldview It is a position one naturally adheres to.

Atheism however, is a worldview, where one has to constantly maintain it, or risk losing it to the natural tenancies of theism.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No it's not.
You simply don't get it.

Jan.

And you're incapable of putting it in a "getable" fashion, right?